Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

analyses were performed. The internal consistency was computed using Chronbach’s alpha. Theintra-class correlation was used to assess the inter-rater reliability. Implications of thesepsychometric characteristics for the use of the HKT-EX risk assessment tool in forensic practicewill be discussed.Quantitative Analysis of the Quality of HCR-20 Risk Assessment ReportsNilanjan Chatterjee , EoE Deanery,UK (nilv15@doctors.org.uk)Piyal Sen, St Andrew's Healthcare Essex, UK (psen@standrew.co.uk)Simone Lindsey, St Andrew's Healthcare Essex, UK (slindsey@standrew.co.uk)Marco Picchioni, St Andrew's Healthcare & St Andrew’s Academic Centre IOP, UK(mpicchioni@standrew.co.uk)Background and Aims: The HCR-20 (Webster et al 1997) is a widely used guide for assessingthe risk of violence in a variety of secure and community settings. There are however few, if any,quality control standards. In the absence of any existing HCR-20 standards, the authors sought todevelop and pilot a quality assessment framework that could be used in the secure inpatientsetting. Methods: The McNeil et al (2011) Competency Assessment Instrument for ViolenceRisk (CAI-V) was modified for use in a low secure in-patient population. 51 recently completedHCR-20 reports were evaluated using this tool. HCR-20 reports were given an overall rating onan eight point scale ranging from 1(Unacceptable) to 8 (Advanced), with a score of 6 achievingthe Competent rating. Inter-rater reliability was checked both at the beginning and end of thestudy. Results and Clinical Implications: Overall, 80% of the HCR-20 reports were rated as'Competent’. 90% of the reports achieved ‘Advanced’ ratings for ‘Evaluating Present and FutureRisk Factors for Violence’, ‘Communicates the Estimate for Violence clearly’ and ‘Risk Factorsfor Violence are Addressed’. Two main areas were identified that needed improvement,‘Considered Duty to Protect’, was not completed in 92% of reports, while ‘Obtained CollateralInformation from Family or Significant Others’, was not completed in 90% of reports. Thesepreliminary findings will be disseminated across the hospital and practice development pointsdiscussed with clinical teams before re-auditing in 3-6 months time.The Introduction of the START Risk Assessment Tool and its Impact on theManagement of Risk within a Medium Secure Assessment Ward in NorthLondonNicole Eady, Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey Mental Health Trust, UK (n.eady@hotmail.co.uk)Tim Rogers, North London Forensic Services, UK (tim.rogers@beh-mht.nhs.uk)349